Banned and wasn’t aware |
Banned and wasn’t aware |
Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 114 Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,876 |
My daughters boyfriend is a private hire driver with a settle car not registered in his name. In October last year he must have been caught on camera dropping someone at Manchester Airport, he was doing 70 when it had been restricted to 50. In November he received a letter saying because he didn’t give the information of who was driving he had been given 6 points. He called up the court to ask what was it about as he hadn’t had a letter and was told to do a statutory declaration and was given a date. Just before the date to do this he received a summons on referral for this month to attend a court where the speeding had happened.
The court date was yesterday and he forgot about it and did not attend, he was convinced it was 16th and only realised after my daughter told him to check (got the letter 3 mthis ago, I know, no excuse) As soon as he realised he called the court and was told he had been disqualified for 6mths, prior to this his licence was clean. I am presuming they doubled the initial 3 points to 6 then 6 for not informing them. The thing is that the keeper of the car (taxi firm) must have provided driver details otherwise how would they have got his address. He is totally distraught as he has never had any dealings with the courts so he was totally naive to what was going on. He has not only lost his licence but also his job if he doesn’t get this sorted, he really doesn’t know what to do , so I’m hoping someone can offer some advice. Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Mar 2018 - 22:51
Post
#101
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
It is unlikely that he would be able to do the plea bargain when he makes the SD as the prosecutor in court will probably have no papers relating to the case. If so and he is asked to plead he should indicate a not guilty plea to both offences and he will be given a new court date, that will be the date to strike the bargain.
No, I have never heard of a Crown Court judge doing that and I am not sure under what authority he has done that, but his is a very confused case. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:19
Post
#102
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 114 Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,876 |
It is unlikely that he would be able to do the plea bargain when he makes the SD as the prosecutor in court will probably have no papers relating to the case. If so and he is asked to plead he should indicate a not guilty plea to both offences and he will be given a new court date, that will be the date to strike the bargain. No, I have never heard of a Crown Court judge doing that and I am not sure under what authority he has done that, but his is a very confused case. Thanks Logician it truly is, even the case workers in the court cant understand what has happened ? So when he appears at his local court to do the SD for the speeding charge, if they ask him to plead he should plead not guilty to both charges , they will then give him another date where he may be able to plea bargain ? The second case, is now being returned from the CC to the court that issued his disqualification when he missed his court date, do you think that will also be for a SD ? I suppose he needs to plead NG to both anyway as the offence did not happen. The girl stumbled drunk onto his mirror and no one can find anything relating to any original charge ? |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 10:26
Post
#103
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If its been returned to the magistrates court it will almost certainly so they can convene a new hearing for him to attend, if that is the case it will be as if the previous hearing and sentencing hadn't happened and allow him to defend or plea bargain as appropriate.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 11:20
Post
#104
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 114 Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,876 |
If its been returned to the magistrates court it will almost certainly so they can convene a new hearing for him to attend, if that is the case it will be as if the previous hearing and sentencing hadn't happened and allow him to defend or plea bargain as appropriate. Thanks Rookie, so given there is nothing listed anywhere for the original offence of failing to stop/report an accident, is it likely that could be dismissed ? |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 12:10
Post
#105
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
No, it would mean a plea bargain wouldn't be possible (or at least much harder) and he'd have to defend the S172 based on the facts, you've been told ad infinitum that them not listing the underlying offence isn't relevant, please take heed FGS.
This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 12:11 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:23
Post
#106
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 114 Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,876 |
No, it would mean a plea bargain wouldn't be possible (or at least much harder) and he'd have to defend the S172 based on the facts, you've been told ad infinitum that them not listing the underlying offence isn't relevant, please take heed FGS. So how do you defend a charge there is no record of and that he has no formal information about, would they just use the information from the S172. He doesn't want to plea bargain, he didn't commit an offence? This post has been edited by Typan: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:33 |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:32
Post
#107
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,195 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:40
Post
#108
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 114 Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,876 |
The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop. I totally understand that, however if as suggested it is going back to the magistrates to start again then surely the first offence is relevant as he would have to plead not guilty to the S172 as he knew nothing about it , how would they look at the original offence ? |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 13:44
Post
#109
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The charge is failing to name the driver in response to an S172, not failing to stop, that is just the offence that triggered the S172 request, again this has been explained lots of times. Whether or not the driver failed to stop is irrelevant, it merely has to be alleged for the S172 request to be valid. As the driver was not identified it would be impossible to prosecute the driver for failing to stop. I totally understand that, however if as suggested it is going back to the magistrates to start again then surely the first offence is relevant as he would have to plead not guilty to the S172 as he knew nothing about it , how would they look at the original offence ? Why would they look at the original offence? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 - 14:35
Post
#110
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
To possibly explain further with an example
The police allege that Keeper As car was speeding, and requries them to nominate the driver on that date. There are two possibilities depending on the response 1) The driver is named in the time allowed, meaning the speeding offence can be continued. Keeper A, if theyre not the driver, has nothing mroe to do 2) Keeper A does not name the driver in time. The speeding offence cannot now be prosecuted as there is no evidence of teh driver, however the Keeper has committed an [b]entirely seperate, independent offence[]/b] of failing to furnish the drivers details. No matter what now happens with speeding - for example, they lose any record of the speeding offence - the Keeper is still guitly of an offence (bar the statutory defence) Now replace "speeding" with "failure to stop". You will see that even if the failing to stop isnt progressed - they dont have details of it - the fact a S172 request was made means the Keeper MUST name the driver, even if no underlying offence was actually committed or can be prosecuted. So the first offence is entirely irrelevant. They only need to be satisfied that the S172 request was made for good reason, and unless a response was given in the time allowed the Keeper has to deal with teh failure to furnish offence. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:29 |